oh thank you very much for linking me the pics, NeonZephyr. Her art reminds me of the artist CatBeeCache on DA. And wtf at the Ben Hurst issue...I guess this guy is never gonna learn...
Yeah, the Ben Hurst back-stab was the first time I realized that Ken was a dick. Years ago, now. And he just keeps proving it time and again... Speaking of which, I've been following this whole drama in a lot of places, and I found this little gem in one of them: "So, did Ken Penders ask Ben Hurst and Len Janson for their permission or insight in, say, deciding Rotor was gay? Or trying to kill Sally, or roboticizing and "killing off" Lupe (and making her married with kids, and Hispanic)? Did he care that Karl Bollers had written Mina as deciding against joining the Freedom Fighters when he kept writing her as part of the team? Never mind all the crazy stuff done to the SEGA cast. How does that fall under "respecting the creators' rights?"" Oh, Penders. You and your hypocrisy know no bounds, do you? I mean, the wolves were Native American based in the show. Not Mexican or Spanish or some bastardization of the two. And don't even get me started on how much they screwed up Max's personality in the comics (though, admittedly, that was more than just Penders). Kind, respectable king who made a poor choice in an ally? Or a bloodline and destiny obsessed tyrant who thinks that his people are moronic and keeps trusting the wrong people despite constant warnings? But, like I said, that's a combination of a lot of writers' choices. (I should say that I had nothing AGAINST the concept of Rotor being gay. I just thought that the execution was extremely poor and done solely for attention.)
wait, WHAT?! when did they mention that Rotor was gay?? I don't even remember... D: but alas, maybe I'm late to the party again since I've been following the comic about a couple of years ago so I might have skipped important information... I was pretty much against the comics untill someone on DA started posted art about it and got me interested, but yeah, I do agree there are things that could have been done better...
I noticed something reading the Ken quotes in this person's posts that I probably wouldn't have otherwise: Well, that's quite fair of you, Ken, saying that it's not yet determined if it's okay or not for them to be using your-- ...Oh. I see you've already changed your mind on that. Ken claimed it years after leaving the comics. It was never actually stated in-story, so it's pretty much not considered canon by anyone. EDIT: Oh wow. I hadn't even considered any of that. I hope this person doesn't mind, but I posted their quote on Ken's forum, because that's just too good to not mention.
@FeliciaVal: Try the Mobius Encyclopedia to brush up any lore you've missed. It's not complete, or anything, but it'll give you some background info while we're waiting for Who's Who. I only started subscribing shortly after Ian took up writing, myself (my public library used to get them, so I'd read them there until then. I believe that was in the 70's or 80's up to 160ish). @ Tylinos: Eh, Penders hasn't exactly been consistent in anything this entire time. It doesn't even surprise me anymore. I've actually started to find it quite funny. And infuriating. It's a strange combination. Which shows how insane and drawn-out this has gotten. EDIT: @Tylinos again: It was an anon at plus4chan, honestly. I don't see why they would.
just imagine that Penders wins the trial and Archie is not allowed to use his characters and stories anymore... Will it mean that the comics will have to start over? Or will Archie have to pay Penders a considerable amount of money for using his stuff? I'm a bit confused there... EDIT: @NeonZephyr: yup, that's pretty much what I do nowadays xD scrub the Mobius Encyclopedia from time to time especially for references when I need to draw the characters. Thx for the heads up thought
If he wins, they'll have the choice of whether or not to pay him to continue to use his characters. If they chose not to, the comic would either die, get a reboot, or just see a bunch of characters suddenly vanish.
I'm not a reader of Archie, although seriously considering it, I think it be hilarious if Ian killed them off in the most humiliating way possible, followed by indifference from the remaining cast.
thanks for the information. I don't know why, call me skeptical if you want, but part of me wants me to Penders to win. I'd like to see what Archie does if he does. But on the other side, if he doesn't win, well...justice got served I guess. He is still an idiot no matter what. Now I'm really curious on what's going to happen anyways. EDIT: what Steelbrush said XD
The problem with the "Ian can just kill them if Archie loses" idea is that they'd still have to pay Penders to use them for long enough to kill them. And I highly doubt Penders would allow them to use them just to kill them off.
then a reboot would be the best solution it seems... I can't really see Archie giving up on the Sonic comic after all this long time
I was very suprised how their Mega Man comic was very acurate to the games while bringing some new stuff to the table. (For example, it's seems that the next act will give more depth to Cossack before of what I asume being the Mega Man 4 arc.) Let's be honest stuff like Kintobors and loads of Echidnas, Naugus etc.... etc... are annoying relics that hardly matered back then and now even less. A reboot based on the games + SatAM's main characters for the sake of the ol' readers would help fresh up the comics for the readers and more flexible for marketing for Sega (let's be honest it's the only reason that the comic exists in the end.) A bit like the last Genesis arc... but with actual plot and still have some original stories.
The status quo is so heavily entrenched that it would appear futile for even a Penders victory to reset the canon. They'd pull something like how they got rid of SATAM Robotnik and through the use of literary devices make it clear without mentioning the characters that those characters were gone. Looking at this from a more realistic view, Penders' vengeance leads him to founder in the precedents around him and he neither can make his comic nor get any more money, outside of Archie settling it out of court (since that seems to make more sense).
EDIT: Don't try playing the victim, Ken. People linked you that interview in the past. You have no excuse.
I absolutely love how he completely ignored the actual point of the question in that quote. But, then, he always seems to ignore when we call him out on his hypocrisy. Or say that we're just silly normal people that don't understand. Yeah, he took "abuse." Right. He can't even just say "it's not right to discuss this now" and leave it at that. He still has to twist it to make it look like he's in the right, all the time. I also doubt that Hurst would turn it down solely because of money. Unlike Penders, Hurst showed that he loved the series for the series sake. Yeah, he had to eat, but he always seemed to emphasis that he just wanted to work on the story and with the characters again. Maybe I'm a little biased. Maybe I'm a little bitter. But the fact that he utterly ignored the real question (or the point about his hypocrisy) just... is really irritating. Not really surprising, but all the same....
Ken's response to someone else noting how Ken's post doesn't match up with Ben's: I guess this means we can't take Ben's word for things in Pendersland. No questioning Ken's accuracy allowed because we aren't Ken or Ben.
Thanks to the one who linked the Ben Hurst article. Great read. Does anyone know why Sega had a problem with the two parter "Blast to the Past"? Also, the story about his friend dying of cancer nearly had me choked up.
The part where he speaks of being self-serving suggests he realized that he waded in too deep on his comments... but naturally he can't admit he made a mistake and so projects being wrong onto everyone else. Classy!
Okay, here's a challenge for you guys because I'm curious about it, but I'm feeling really lazy: Can anyone find any times on his forum where Ken's actually apologized for being wrong about something? I'm sure he's done it at least once, and I've probably read it before, but I really want to see it to reassure myself that he's not that stuck up.
Does this count? Still feels kinda weak to me, and he's still playing the victim card here, but he did actually use the words "apologize" and "sorry." I'll skim a few more threads, but this is the only thing I've noticed so far.
